It's certainly too high, but there's a big difference between the de jure tax rate (the rate on paper) and the de facto effective rate (what corporations actually pay.) It would certainly be in the interests of major corporations to lobby for a higher de jure rate in order to raise the barriers of entry for smaller corporations, which lack the resources to find and to take advantage of loopholes and shelters on the same level as the heavy hitters.

What is counted as a small business? Does that include massive franchise brands such as McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts which mostly consist of franchisees operating a few stores serving those particular products? If so, how much control can the franchisee exert over the location they operate?

The French definitely wanted revenge, but they were also very concerned about the amount of money another war with Great Britain would require. A major cause of the French Revolution was the massive amount of debt draining the French treasury from the American War for Independence, other wars, and the general lavish spending of the King Louis's Court.

Whenever people talk about how Israel is such a great ally of the US, I tell them to look up one name, Jonathan Pollard. Originally an American citizen and civilian intelligence analyst, he's responsible for the one of the LARGEST turnovers of classified information in American history. He gave most of it to Israel, but he also attempted to sell info to Pakistan. My problem with the case wasn't the spying itself, I know even allies spy on each other. It was Israel's reaction, they were not only unapologetic, they showed utter contempt towards the US and held up Pollard as a great Jewish martyr. There are campaigns running constantly to release this guy (who has renounced his American citizen and would be deported if released.)

Among the many requests for Pollard's release was one at the 1998 Wye River conference, where Netanyahu recalls, "if we signed an agreement with Arafat, I expected a pardon for Pollard." Of his meeting with Netanyahu during the Wye River talks, Bill Clinton writes, "Netanyahu was threatening to scuttle the whole deal unless I released Pollard. He said I had promised him I would do so at an earlier meeting the night before, and that's why he had agreed on the other issues. In fact, I had told the prime minister that if that's what it took to make peace, I was inclined to do it, but I would have to check with our people."

Now you have to ask yourself, do they want to get him released so badly because they actually see him as a martyr or is it because they want to assure future would-be spies that Israel can bail them out when the shit hits the fan, thus enabling Israel to spy on the US without with impunity?

Reminds me of the story in Nightfather, where the a author's father, a Holocaust survivor, describes to his children how he had the honor of meeting Hitler's underpants. Apparently, all the state secrets of Nazi Germany were stored in the fuerher's asshole, giving Hitler's underpants unprecedented access to the Third Reich's most sensitive information. Eventually, the authorities ascertained that the underwear knew too much and threw it into a concentration camp, where he met the father. I'm paraphrasing here, but the father says something like "The Nazis were bastards, sure, but their underpants? I can't say a bad thing about them."

The problems affecting Germany during the 1920's had very little to do with the German government itself. The Wiemar republic was DOA simply by signing the Treaty of Versailles (or risk occupation and splitting up of the entire country by the Allies.) The Treaty completed humiliated Germany and the reparation payments gutted the economy with hyperinflation. Despite having little choice in the matter, the leaders of the Wiemar Republic completely lost the respect of the German people before even beginning to govern. One of Hitler's first act was to completely ignore the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Not only did this lift off the burden of reparations, but it also caused a recession in France, which had grown dependent on the payments.

My history professor bought it up during one of his lectures and specifically mentioned it as an avoidance tactic during Vietnam (along with feigning homosexuality, eating vast amounts of table salt for a week before the exam, feigning pacifism, joining the national guard, and the like.) So, yes, it's hearsay, but I think the guy's pretty reliable.

Well, pretty much every conspiracy theory has a political motivation rather than a critical reasoning one. Some conservatives will go on about stupid the film "JFK" is while still subscribing to the Birther movement, while, even after ten years, loose changers still prattle on about missiles into the pentagon. Makes you wonder who the conspiracy theorists would be if Nixon had been in the limo and Gore had been president during 9/11.

or that most gun rights advocates consistently ignore the growing militarization of local law enforcement and how both parties clamor for tighter domestic security (including drones.) This is why I think the NRA is simply a front for the gun industry rather than a citizens' organization actually concerned with gun rights. They'll never say that gun control is a two way street: Your rights are not just taken away when your guns are they taken away; they can also be taken away when you're given all the guns in the world, but the government has such powerful weaponry as to render your arms null and void. After all, the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to artillery, tanks, nukes, jet fighters, or drones. In fact, that's the real genius of it all. The 2nd amendment gets weaker day by day, not because of any gun control laws, but because the founding fathers could not envision future weapons technology, which easily overpowers traditional long arms. Therefore, Republicans can advocate lax gun controls, while knowing that high gun ownership poses less and less a threat to the American security apparatus as each day passes.

I remember seeing this on Snopes years ago. Other than to debunk a false description about the picture, however, Snopes could not confirm its exact origins. They thought that perhaps he was killed in Mosul in Dec. 2004 by the Iraqi National Guard.